You must post a clear and direct question in the title. The title may contain two, short, necessary context sentences.
No text is allowed in the textbox. Your thoughts/responses to the question can go in the comments section. more >>

Any post asking for advice should be generic and not specific to your situation alone. more >>

I love biking and in the summer I bike everywhere... buuuut in the winter the weather can drop to an average -25 to -30. Often going as low as
-35 to -50. Biking is NOT an option. And transit is SHIT in winnipeg. I tried shopping at a farmers market but everything was like twice as expensive as what I could get anywhere else, meaning I cannot afford it. I agree on the mom and pop stores though, and will use them when I can.

Read America Unchained by Dave Gorman. He is a chap from Britain who tries to cross America by not purchasing from corporations, eating at chained restaurants, sleeping in chained hotels, etc. It's rather good.

At least you know who the corporation is working for: itself. With the government, it's not always obvious which corporation owns which particular politician's views on which particular topic until they vote.

Corporations and governments both work for themselves. The difference is the government just needs your votes and taxes, while corporations do whatever they can to improve their profit margin. For most things, it maeks a lot more sense to trust the corporations less. If they could do it to improve their profits, they would throw away all your private information. (e.g. Facebook). The government has to care what the public thinks about them so they can't do this (as efficiently). It took the Patriot Act a tragedy to push through, and it isn't nearly at efficient at taking private info as Facebook is.

I think this boils down to Orwell vs Huxley. Mandatory removal of rights, or voluntary removal of rights. Guess which is much more potent?

Well, there's the soft control of being big enough to eliminate competition and thus constrict your options. Also, they can throw their money and influence towards selling or not selling certain products. Oh, and the mind control spray.

it's the corporations that have the lobbyists. They lobby for, or against, something that they are interested in and when they spend enough, the votes go where the corporation wants them to. Then, with those votes, they gain the control they seek and we are affected.

Yes... under the protection of government. Which is hilarious as to why you trust government more. You don't trust the creation of the government, yet you trust the government. Typical reddit bullshit.

The government will throw me under the bus for power. The corporation with throw me under the bus for money. Or people in the corporation (without regard for the corporation) will throw me under the bus for money. The latter is what I fear the most.

The government can enter your home and kidnap you at gunpoint... a corporation does not have this power. The corporation's true power lies within its limited liability, which is derived from government.

True. The worst injustices (from a political point of view) can only be inflicted on us by a government. But the fact that a corporations power is received by the law doesn't make me trust the corporation is going to act responsibly. In fact, by definition, it should only act responsible enough so that it does not hurt profit. The US government, by definition, is my responsibility. What Exxon did, only paying 20 years later and at lower damages, is what a corporation should do. But this doesn't make me trust them when the CEO says they'll take responsibility for the damage they caused. He's not supposed to do that. He supposed to says it, but only do it just enough.

I agree other than what the US government does is my responsibility. When our government has grown to the size it has, representation has become diluted to the point where individuals have lost their voices. Having 535 people represent 300 million doesn't pan out when in the past it was 141 in 1801 with a population of 5.31 million.

You make an interesting point. I wonder if we can make the jump from a representative government to a true democracy. It's getting to the point where it would be practical to have everybody voting on issues instead of "representatives" within a couple of generations. The technology is here anyway even if the process is not.

I never really felt responsibility for my government too, until I traveled abroad. I was traveling in Japan when I came across a war protest. Everybody was very polite. I mean this was japan. I felt guilty but I still felt the need to defend the war. I didn't know if they were protesting Iraq vs Afghanistan, or something else. A protest, especially one in a foreign language, is not a place for nuance. This was in 2005 and I'm hardcore anti-republican. But I still felt the need to defend it which kind of surprised me. From that point I felt the need to take the responsibility for the government. When Bush fucked up and when Obama fucks up, it's on my head. And I'll look at the citizens of any other functioning democracy the same way.

Let me put it this way since this thread is about trust. I'll trust anybody who has to work for a living over any politician. I'll trust a taxi driver in Iran over the president of the united states.

As the article you linked to points out, the level of "protections" afforded to corporations is not at all a settled point of law in the US. They certainly don't have the exact same rights as individual natural citizens.

Many corporations are publicly traded and with enough money you could control what a corporation does. Also, you can compete with corporations with good business practices. You are not powerless with corporations. Government on the other hand. Generally speaking, voting is useless because dumb asses still will vote for one of the two political parties that control the US government. So then you have to gain power in one of those which generally means selling out to their agenda. So, I can fight against the government to rally enough people to actually vote for reasonable candidates ie non dem or republican who actually has the people's interests at heart. Get enough of those rare people in office to make a difference, and hope they don't go crazy with power or start a business or make a bunch of money and buy one and run it in a responsible manner. That will give people a choice to not deal with truly evil companies. A lot more people have pulled off the later.

I'll add it to my "to read" list. Sadly I'm about 70 pages into team of rivals, shits intense.

I'm not sure why I need to boycott JP Morgan. I don't use their services.

As for BP, well, oil is a sticky wicket in general. I'm not sure the economic terms (Inelastic?) but we needs oil and it's not like opening up a burger stand. Furthermore, government gives subsidies by setting up transpo the way it does.

People voted with their money by not buying their gigantic cars. Then they were bailed out by the US government because they were "too big to fail." Essentially, the US population voted with their dollars and subsequently they were told they're wrong and the money was taken from them anyways.

Well, not government in general, but the government we currently have. The problem is the government is funded by corporate interests and in turn funds their interests in an I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine, and everyone else can fuck right off deal.

You probably also voted for those in the government that have let bp "fix" the problem instead of saying "this is an emergency and if you can't fix it right now we will" and then put however much money is necessary to fix it and charge bp for that service instead of the collateral damage.

Sorry, but this has got to be the most ludicrious statement I have seen all year. Every dollar I spend is a vote for which corporations I choose to subsidize. I have every ability not to fund those who I disagree with, and make decisions based upon information immediately. I have actual recourse.

Yet with government, there is little recourse. While laws themselves are a product of the legislative branch, the details of how they are implemented are left to the executive branch and unelected bureaucrats. Agencies like the FDA, DEA, FCC, DOE, and countless others are given a long leash in their legislative abilities and are hardly accountable. Even where you see the illusion of accountability, you only have to look at the statistics to see how much of an illusion it actually us. The US Congress has a <25% approval rating, with a 97% incumbent reelection rate.

Furthermore, the reason corporations wield power is because they are limited in their liability by government. If government stopped protecting corporations, they would have no more power than you as an individual. Those who own the corporation would be personally liable for the actions of the corporation.

Except for in oligopolistic and monopolistic markets, you would seem to have a valid argument. Given the concentration of wealth and resources in markets by a handful of individuals and corporations it moots your point about the "voting with your dollars" theory.

When there is no where else to turn with your money, you're fucked. The rational choice model still says you'll buy at a company you hate if the alternatives are so outside of your rational choice spectrum.

You need food, but the only place within 50 miles is a Wal-Mart or whatever large corporation. Sure, from time to time you might go outside this 50 miles to get your services, but you have seriously restrained options. If you look at the market domination by large corporations it makes it almost impossible to vote with other choices. Airlines, agriculture, cars, box-stores, etc.

Your theory has just as many hurdles, and is probably applicable to only non-necessity or large ticket items. Otherwise, you're pretty much fucked.

Accountability is different from support. People get upset with the government for allowing corps to get away with murder (because they're meant to be for us), but not with the corps for committing murder (they're meant to be profit-seeking at the cost of everything else, and that's fine!)

I know. And without Government, one corporation would have more guns than any other corporation.

The biggest threat to any freedom is always the "legal" use of coercive power--something governments have.

With no Government "legal" would be meaningless. Coercive power is something people with guns have, whether it's legal or not. In countries where Government has lost it's power over certain regions (say Colombia) or has all but disbanded (Somalia) it's the people with guns and resources who have power.

In a stateless society, there would not be any corporations anyway--government makes their existence possible.

Maybe not corporations in the current meaning, as in "institutions that are granted a charter recognizing them as separate legal entities having their own privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of their members", as the concepts of "charter", "legal", "privileges" and "liabilities" would cease to exist. Neocorporations would enforce their own privileges and likely disregard liabilities (unless convenient) instead of relying on an agreed upon legal system, fair or not, enforced by Government.

I know. And without Government, one corporation would have more guns than any other corporation.

Why would a corporation own guns? At that point, it isn't a corporation--it is its own "government", thus going back to my original statement that a government is a threat to our rights and not a corporation.

With no Government "legal" would be meaningless. Coercive power is something people with guns have, whether it's legal or not. In countries where Government has lost it's power over certain regions (say Colombia) or has all but disbanded (Somalia) it's the people with guns and resources who have power.

A stateless society is not a chaotic one. I would highly encourage you to look into reading anarchist theory (both from a libertarian and socialist perspective, let's say Proudhon and Rothbard) before you continue making silly assumptions.

Maybe not corporations in the current meaning, as in "institutions that are granted a charter recognizing them as separate legal entities having their own privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of their members", as the concepts of "charter", "legal", "privileges" and "liabilities" would cease to exist. Neocorporations would enforce their own privileges and likely disregard liabilities (unless convenient) instead of relying on an agreed upon legal system, fair or not, enforced by Government.

At which point they are simply competing states. But, the way in which these "states" arise is unlikely (given your explanation).

Essentially, you've created an entire political system in your head in which corporations are always the enemy and the government is the only thing which can keep them in check. I disagree--it took me a while to reach the position I take now but I believe with a bit of reading you will probably adopt some similar type of position, even if you go so far as anarcho-syndicalism.

You're question obviously stems from the BP Oil leak. That said, there are so many more cookie jars that the government has its hands in, and they screw most of it up. [Most] Corporations turn a profit year after year, the government does not; in fact it repeatedly runs up debt. Now I know I only mentioned one fiscal example, but would you trust the government to take over successful companies, IE Google? I wouldn't. Also, look at the post office, Social Security etc...

I trust Corporations because 90% of the time they have something to LOSE if they fail at their goal, the government has unlimited respawns and that's bullshit.

[Most] Corporations turn a profit year after year, the government does not

That's because corporations are CORPORATIONS. For-profit organizations with a profit-maximizing incentive.

Government-owned business (crown corporations, etc.) are NOT for-profit, because gov't-owned businesses strive to improve the lives of citizens - not turn a profit. Imagine if public transportation - extremely essential to a country - were handled by corporations.

Since economically, people should be paying a lot more for bus tickets if the public transport industry were to be profitable, what do you think the corporation that owns public transport will do? Jack up prices. And then it's no longer public transport, as people would rather drive their own cars instead.

edit: The government certainly should not take over companies like Google, because Google operates in a market where there is competition. Government companies should be the ONLY monopolies around, because governments do not have a profit-maximizing incentive.

edit 2: Also, governments are supposed to be running a deficit. Debt is not necessarily a bad thing. Please take a course in economics and educate yourself.

Further, most of the really horrible examples of corporate irresponsibility come from the government repeatedly subsidizing / bailing out failing corporations. Then, when they fuck up again years later, everyone goes on about capitalism doesn't work. Failure is a part of a capitalist system. Let them die if they can't survive without state intervention. It'll sting now, but we'll be better in the long run.

What's wrong with the USPS? They're self sustaining, they provide good service, and they operate in markets where other delivery companies can't, as evidenced by Fedex and UPS subcontracting delivery to them for some areas.

I believe that's actually intentional. They operate by building a capital surplus, then spending it out through upgrades, rate decreases, and that sort of thing, then make alterations that generate a surplus again. They're currently operating with a surplus, so they're allowing it to drain. Their current problem is that they're loosing money faster than they would like, which necessitates adjustments.

They're actually a pretty efficient organization. Less than $1 per day per residence.

The problems in the USPS are relatively new and mirror similar problems in the private sector. Additionally, since the specialty of USPS was standard mail, which has largely been replaced by email, they have had a harder time adjusting. In addition, they are rquired to be everywhere, or we need to pick which towns will give up their post offices. Yours perhaps?

It was one of my examples of how government runs inefficiently. see ^ there.

As for the USPS, I'm ok with them not delivering on Saturday. They shouldn't close any offices, but they could do an every-other-day delivery for all residential "customers". I for one don't check my mail every day. If I need something sent immediately, I can choose fedex or go the USPS office that didn't close. They could save a lot of money on employees by doing this. Yes people will get laid off, but it's not the public tax payers responsibility to pay for an inefficient system.

Why decide? I have a healthy amount of skepticism towards most authority. I'm not talking about being part of black block, but its just worth questioning anything that has power over you.

Government of course. They have a monopoly on force. Corporations might not have coercive powers, but soft economic coercion still matters, and can often bleed over into government.

But, I am skeptical of even doctors, mine and general authorities. Do they really know whats up? People have made mistakes in the past, do they make them now? Is mental health refined or are they still slightly full of shit with bits of truth thrown in? Is this procedure for my health, or padding the pockets praying on my want of health?

I question the people fixing my car for the same reason. I question the media. I question myself too. It's just good to be skeptical.

You're SUPPOSED to not trust your government. Honestly, government is NEVER going to be perfect and maintaining a healthy amount of skepticism is never a bad thing. For this reason, I'm often frustrated with the community around here because there's such a strong desire for government to control everything. Government lied us into Vietnam. Government lied us into Iraq. Government fueled the hatred toward American in the Middle-East.

You can distrust the government while still believing in the institution itself. Just because I may speak out against my government doesn't mean I don't want my government there.

Too an extent, you could also argue that government is what allows corporations to operate as they do. Look at the corn industry, or the oil industry. The subsidies they receive (at least in the United States) is absolutely absurd. I mean, I get why they receive these subsidies, but that doesn't mean I necessarily agree with it. With corn, the government has made us a slave to the corn lobby. They even have to put labels on BREAD when a bread product contains no HFCS. BREAD. Maybe that seems normal to some, but I was really surprised to learn what was in my bread.

Government: can come into your house in the middle of the night with guns if you piss them off.

Corporations: can't come into your house in the middle of the night with guns if you piss them off. In fact, you can pretty much not buy their stuff and have no further interaction with them for the rest of your life.

The government creates the system, it is the top of the food chain. It keeps failing corporations propped up when they should die. It creates regulations that skew the market and make stupid decisions more profitable than good ones.

Government regulations allow the LEGAL entity called the corporation to exist.

Even if a corporation can influence the government to do evil, it is still the government who legislates that evil into existence.

The government powerful enough to give you everything is powerful enough to take everything away.

Hmm, I'd still trust the corporations less because they have a motive to cause harm - by cutting out on safety measures, etc. they can increase their profits, whereas we aren't really in any sort of 1984-style statist thing.

Definitely government. As crappy as wal-mart, BP, and all those others can be, most of them have a market cap in the billions, but government spending is in the trillions. If I don't like wal-mart, I can just not patronize them. Try opting out of paying taxes to the government. Some companies like the pharmaceuticals, DOW, and Monsanto are evil as shit ... they were made evil because of specific government monopolies called patent.

When those plantation masters in 1850 beat the slaves on the plantation ... yep the were evil as shit. However 1000 times more evil than that was the entire plantation system propped up by tne government. Until you got rid of the later, the former would never self resolve. The same is true today.

The corporatism that so many redditors loathe is specifically caused by the socialism that they so lovingly embrace.

A corporation cannot throw me in jail, nor can it vote or create a law. The degree to which a corporation can impede my ability to enjoy my life as I wish is very limited. Not so for government.

Government can and does throw thousands of people into locked cages because they don't want people to consume a certain plant. I mean, with that kind of power applied to seemingly ridiculous desires, I'd have to say I distrust government more. Not because government is less deserving of my trust, but because the risks associated with trusting government are orders of magnitude higher.

There's nothing inappropriate about a corporation wanting something, or even expressing this want. However, there is something inappropriate about an elected official giving a corporation what they want at the expense of the general public.

To me, that's a reason to distrust government a lot more than it is a reason to distrust corporations.

Just? No, it's not. If you're a lobbyist for a large and well-organized/funded lobby (AIPAC, AARP, etc), you can threaten to withhold votes and funds from candidates that don't support your positions. Likewise, corporate lobbies (tobacco, arms) can give or withhold funding according to the politicians' stances. It is not "just" advocacy.

Theoretically, the opposition groups to these lobbies could themselves form lobbies to counter this influence, but in reality, they often don't have the funds to even consider it. It's very easy for big tobacco or AARP to throw money at advertising and organization, but very hard for anti-tobacco or young people's groups (do we even have those?) to do the same.

Also, there's a huge tradition of politicians and lobbyists incestuously switching places every few years. It's really questionable when someone gets out of their term in office and immediately goes to work for, say, the arms lobby, for 6x their previous salary.

There are limits on direct donations. Very well-funded groups can figure out ways to get around these types of things, though (have you ever seen commercials "brought to you by the Organization to Support Candidate X"?)

And groups like AIPAC can marshall surprising power just from having a very small percentage of the population ready to vote 'yea' or 'nay' on their say-so. That too takes funding (for things like mass mailings, expensive donation dinners, traveling speakers, etc) and is very hard to organize at the drop of a hat for a specific issue or vote.

Because it takes years and years and lots of donations to get one started, and because the entire time you'll be fighting the advertising/propaganda of the currently well-organized and funded lobby. The system is set up so that already-extant lobbies have a huge advantage. If you look at the history of opposition to AIPAC, for instance, you can see just how immensely difficult it was for even sitting US Presidents to confront the lobby (e.g. Reagan fought them over his sale of AWACS to Saudi Arabia in 1981), let alone individual citizens trying to start up a counter-movement.

Also, corporate lobbies in particular are dangerous, because they aren't as reliant on continued donations from large groups of citizens. AIPAC or AARP have to continue to please their donors and voters, but Big Ag and Big Tobacco's goal is to keep their companies making money, so there're fewer direct checks on them.

What about the ACLU? Greenpeace? NRA?

I like the ACLU, and I'm pretty meh about the NRA. I still think that lobbyists as a category have far far too much power the way that things are currently set up.

Greenpeace is a shitty organization. I'm all for environmental protection, but the way that they go about trying to acheive that involves lying, violence, and often not even doing a good job of protecting the environment, when it will get in the way of their publicity. The wikipedia page on Criticism of Greenpeace has more info.

yes i agree with you but corporations also having ability to destroy your life with lawsuits, also that fact that they can much easily maintain a status quo that inhibits a better standard of life eg. buying patents that would hurt their bottom line but would also make life a hole lot better. but you could argue that the government sets the laws that allow them to do so

Yes, I would argue that you might want to consider who owns the building where these lawsuits proceed. The government runs the lawsuit show, and has the power to dismiss lawsuits where appropriate, and also offer relief and restitution for any "life ruining" which might have occurred.

A corporation has no lawsuit power in and of itself. It doesn't even have the power to encourage you to show up in court. The government is the one with this power, and if power granted to the government is so easily manipulated by others, then that makes me distrust the government.

corporations control money which goes into lobbying and has a heavy influence on policymaking decisions. This is especially true with pharmaceuticals, tobacco (which are mutually beneficial because the more people have cancer, the more drugs they need to manage symptoms.)
Also the arms industry, and big oil (of course)

I have to dissagree. A lot of people have no realization when it comes to who's really in charge. The president has power but he isn't actually in charge. Our nation is in a little bit of a rut right now and a lot of it is due to unemployment. Yes, corporations come across corrupt but most started small with 1 or 2 people trying to achieve the so called "American dream" just like everyone else who does or wants to own a business. These corporations provide jobs and that's what we need.

I don't really distrust the average Joe at the Dept of State, Post Office, or even NSA. However, I deeply distrust anyone who is supposed to represent the people of the US while making more than three times the average American's annual salary, a nearly limitless expense budget and no transparency as to where their funds come from. Even when laws prevent questionable fundraising they can just pull it from the national party's coffers which are less strictly regulated. Why buy a candidate when you can buy a whole party?

1st: I trust corporations under market pressure. If customers are able to "vote with their feet" then I trust the corporation to do the thing which makes them keep their customers.

2nd: I trust governments under voter pressure. Voter pressure is distant and indirect, so it is not as strong as market pressure. Nevertheless, it is better than no. 3, which is...

3rd: Corporations not under market pressure. This includes the deals they do with government (who do you think let BP drill in the first place?) and corporations that have some kind of a monopoly or position in an oligopoly, natural or otherwise. This is the proverbial worst of all possible worlds. Private tyrannies accountable to nobody.

This has the side effect that I would trust them both differently in different scenarios. E.g. I trust BP to not overcharge me at the pump more than I trust them to not spill oil everywhere.

Corporations were not allowed under the original US Constitution and life would be soo much better if they were not allowed because they have the right to profit, but not the liability of failure. This is wrong.

I tend to be of the naive school of thought that believes politicians get into politics because they really do want to do what they believe is right. No matter how right-wing and crazy they may be, I tend to take it at face value that they do want to do what's best, and all political arguments are simply about which course of action is the best. Corporations, on the other hand, are by definition only concerned with profit and the bottom line. So, I trust an institution that at least claims to be attempting to do what is right, as opposed to institutions that explicitly put money above all else.

Both would grind my still living body for food if were sure to benefit them. The only thing keeping them from doing horrible things is the potential negative ramifications of doing so. Both systems have demonstrated they will be as evil as they can get away with.

I trust both systems only to the extent that I trust they'd get in trouble for doing what they shouldn't.

My take is that you can't trust people. "Corporations" or "the Government" are just articles on paper. They, in and of themselves, can't really do anything. It's the people behind them that have the power and good people do good things and evil people do evil things (and there are a ton of people in the middle who sometimes do good or evil).

To say that one or the other is more trustworthy, to me, makes no sense.

Having said that, at least the government can watch over corporations. Who watches over the government?

I'm glad to have supplied a forum for such discussion. Upvote consensus seems to be supporting indifference/equal distrust at this point, with corporations at a distant second and government at a slightly more distant third.

I agree that the government is equally susceptible to corruption/greed, and that it's had more than its fair share of inexcusable behavior.

As another thread for this topic, if any non-US redditors are reading this, I'm equally glad to put it out there that we US citizens don't always agree with or support the actions of our companies or our government. Please bear in mind that the nation does not always reflect its people.

This is a phenomenon that waxes and wanes in accordance with the government's activities on behalf of the governed. Corporations answer to shareholders, government answers to citizens. When business becomes too powerful, government has failed to protect its citizens from them. Citizens must demand protection from unwarranted corporate power, and vote for candidates that support their views. I think Calvin Coolidge said that "The business of government is business". He was wrong; the business of government is providing the most benefit for the people. Government: "of the people, by the peole, and for the people". Never forget that.

i trust the government more than corporations because if you look at a corporation like a legal "person," it has all the characteristics of a psychopath. also, government rule is bound to its country. if a corporation breaks say a child labor law in one country, it can easily migrate over somewhere else where that law is not illegal and exploit the people and environment there. what i just said and much much more is explained in the documentary THE CORPORATION. WATCH IT NOW

Why? There's a fundamental difference between how they operate. The most a corporation could/can do under the given assumption is simply convince you to buy/sell a product or work for them. It's trade and it relies ultimately on your consent.

A government is coercive with violence backing every action. Don't pay your taxes or buy into some mandatory law and they will ultimately arrive with guns to force you to or strip you of rights. It may be that some things need to be enforced this way but ultimately one should always be wary of the system that operates as such.

I like to think of the Corporations as pulling the strings of the Government. At this point you gotta admit that the Government only pretends to stand for the people, it's "best" interests are with the people that give them millions for their campaigns.

At least corporations are entirely or nearly entirely greed / profit driven. They may be untrustworthy, but reliably so, which makes them trustworthy in a roundabout sense.

Government is somewhat driven by greed and corruption, but mainly it's just driven by "The Wisdom Of The Crowd's" evil twin, "The Stupidity Of The Mob", and it's often anybody's guess what it will do next, or after it's acted, why it acted that way.

You can never rely with confidence, let alone certainty, on Government to behave in any particular way. It is absolutely untrustworthy.

Corporations and private industry. Not because they're morally more subjective, but the fact that they are driven by money and generally have to conform in order to proceed. If they don't, they will get caught sooner or later.

The government tries to protect people in a 'im a crazy cult' kind of way. Their intentions are often genuine yet misguided. Corporations intentions are not genuine as they are out to make profit, but must serve the user in order to do so, thus being forced conform and be trustworthy. If they don't, they lose everything (eventually).

After little dubious thought, I have less reason to trust the government. Ironically, corporations are more democratic.

Think about it: ostensibly, everyone has a say in how the American government works. All these people have an equal say, and since there are so many people who vote, a single vote is mostly worthless. That's not to say that a mass of voters refusing to vote is good; votes in large quantities are absolutely necessary. One just has to understand that their representation is comparatively meaningless unless other people share similar opinions/values. There's no upward mobility within the system: you have one vote, and that's it. In the corporate system, you have as much representation with a corporation which you have invested in as you can afford. You can start small, and buy more representation in the company as needed and whenever possible. Corporations also have high-level elections, and your voice on the matter is proportional to however much stock you own.

For someone with only a handful of shares in a corporation, there's effectively no difference. But the increased liberty comes from the fact that other owners of the corporation are willing to yield their control over the corporation for a price. The stockholder is less vulnerable to being overlooked because he has a say in how much representation he has. Additionally, the corporation is forced to be more responsible in turn to its investors than the government to its citizens. If it tried to steal representation from its investors, it would ultimately collapse as nobody would want to increase their capital. The government can steal representation from its citizens all it wants with no repercussions, as seen by the PATRIOT Act and the legal precedent whereby felons can be stripped of voting rights by the same government that defines a felony.

Finally, corporations have incredible representation within the government, representation that no one citizen could hold alone. If one owns enough stock in a corporation to effectively influence corporate policy, he will gain indirect influence over the government if the corporation lobbies effectively. He will have gained control over the government through control of a corporation. In the current legislative situation, the opposite is not likely to occur. Ultimately, by investing in a corporation, one will gain power in the corporate and governmental spheres that could not be gained by placing trust in the government alone.

I haven't gone over some of the more democratic aspects of corporations (investors reserve the right to call meetings, in which shareholders have direct say over the proceedings), and it is true that corporations are as democratic as they are due to the government, but the government works best as a third-party enforcer, and the investment market naturally protects investors as a source of capital due to its size and diversity.

TL;DR: Government is less trustworthy if Corporations see you as Capital instead of Consumer.

The government. I expect corporations to fuck me but not people who are supposed to be representing my interests. It is also easier to see how companies are fucking me. Its not so easy to find how the government is fucking me with bills that are longer than "War and Peace". Hell, at times those fucking us in the government don't know when the government is fucking them either.

Well, they should trust the government more. For the most part the government at least acts under public scrutiny. Watch "This Movie Is Not Yet Rated" to see how the movie industry fought to avoid having the government rate their movies, and in so doing set up a secret cabal who arbitrarily rate movies with zero oversight or rules. If the government rated movies there would be a set list of rules for what constitutes PG-13 or R etc., and you would be able to look up exactly what scene caused a movie to get the rating it has. The MPAA does not have to do any of this and essentially runs a black-box rating system where big-budget movies have an easier time getting PG-13 (such as Avatar and Die Hard 4 did).

At least the Corporations let you know they're fu**ing you over to your face and not inside secret Bohemian Grove / Bilderberger meetings or bill passing that gets foreshadowed by some celebrity's inane life.